High Court grants amendment, interim relief in service tax petition

The High Court of Bombay granted an application for amendment and interim relief in a petition challenging a service tax adjudication order. The Court allowed the petitioners to amend their petition but expressed reservations about the consolidated application format. The petitioners were given time to carry out the amendment and provide copies to the respondent's counsel. Regarding the interim relief application, the Court granted a stay on the adjudication order upon the petitioners depositing 10% of the demanded amount within four weeks. The Court emphasized compliance with the deposit requirement to maintain the interim relief granted.

---

---

Issues:
Consolidated application for amendment and interim relief in a petition challenging an adjudication order regarding service tax. Dispute over the percentage of demanded amount to be deposited for appeal. Granting stay of operation of the adjudication order pending deposit by the petitioners.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay considered a consolidated application seeking leave to amend a petition and interim relief. The Court allowed the amendment but expressed reservations about the consolidated application format. The petitioners were granted three weeks to carry out the amendment and provide amended copies to the respondent's counsel within the same period. Respondents were given four weeks to file any replies to the amended petition, with advance copies to be furnished to the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel stated representation for a newly impleaded respondent, the Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, Goa.

In the context of the interim relief application, the Court deliberated on the adjudication order raising a demand for service tax payment by the petitioners. The petitioner argued that if a certain circular was struck down, the demand from the adjudication order would not stand. The petitioner sought a stay on the adjudication order, proposing to deposit 7.5% of the demanded amount. However, the respondent contended that 10% deposit was required for challenging the order before the Tribunal. The Court decided to grant a stay on the adjudication order, subject to the petitioners depositing 10% of the demanded amount within four weeks.

The Court clarified that the statutory provisions regarding deposit might not strictly apply to the proceedings as it was a Writ Petition. It emphasized the need for the petitioners to comply with the deposit requirement within the specified timeframe to maintain the granted interim relief. The parties were directed to complete pleadings in the main petition within two months, with the liberty to apply for a fixed disposal date thereafter. The judgment concluded by disposing of the Miscellaneous Civil Application in the aforementioned terms.

---